Re: Qamats Qatan (was Response to Everson Phoenician and why June 7?)

From: Michael Everson (
Date: Thu May 20 2004 - 05:31:42 CDT

  • Next message: Philippe Verdy: "Re: ISO 15924 draft fixes"

    At 22:18 -0700 2004-05-19, John Hudson wrote:

    >I don't automatically accept the argument, made by Michael earlier
    >today, that 'There is a requirement for distinction for X in

    The Universal Character Set is supposed to contain all the scripts of
    the world. For generations students of writing systems have been
    naming and distinguishing scripts. I have such books here from the
    middle of the 19th century; presses in France, England, and Italy
    were cutting type for these scripts two hundred years before that at
    least. The plan is to encode the important distinguishable nodes. A
    different level from palaeography, as can be seen from the
    unification of varieties under the rubric "Phoenician". (I note that
    at least one person has argued reasonably for splitting Neo-Punic off
    of that unification.)

    >On what basis do we decide that X is necessary in plain-text while Y
    >should be done with mark-up or some other 'higher level protocol'?

    Wit and taste? There isn't an algorithm.

    Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  *

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 20 2004 - 05:33:19 CDT